Thoughts on 3.6r power. 1. The engine is a redesign and enlargement of the 3.0 and gained less on the bore diameter than on the stroke, thus limiting increased valve size potential. 2. With only a five speed automatic, good fuel economy becomes more difficult. Tuning an engine for economy sometimes hampers peak power development. 3. The engine has considerable power potential, the foregoing notwithstanding. Direct fuel injection is one option, as is a turbocharger. I assume that the block and crank can be upgraded at a cost. 4. Subaru may intend the engine for users seeking refinement and smoothness over raw power. 5. Greater power sometimes dictates stronger drivetrain parts, thus increasing cost significantly, which may become a marketing issue.

The Infiniti 37x is a very nice car but when you add sunroof, nav, deluxe sound to the base MSRP of 37K it is significantly more costly than a similarly equipped Subaru 3.6 Legacy Ltd. The 37x does have more standard features and a more powerful engine as should a premium car. I guess that I don't consider it to be any more of a direct competitor to the Subaru than is the Lexus awd.

A couple of my neighbors have G37x sedans. They're quite nice, in fact it would probably be my choice in the near-luxury sport sedan class, given you get a Bimmer 3 competitor for a Bimmer 1 series price.

Tough call. Spend a bit more, get the nicer interior and the Keep-up-with-the-Joneses badge.

Or get an even better value in the Soob.

I can imagine going either way with that choice, but honestly I think I'd get a manual Legacy GT over both.

The economy is better, though I am not sure why. Is there data on engine rpm at 60? Have overall gear ratios changed? Multiple possibilities come to mind. In my sales manual, the original economy data was updated with a later insert.

One of the changes from the 3.0R to the 3.6R, I believe, is a new automatic transmission including both gearbox and torque converter. Even with the same overall gear reductions, efficiency could be different AND the 3.6 has better low end torque which if utilized optimally by the trans would improve efficiency. Another factor is different tires which alone sometimes adds (or reduces) mpg by as much as 1 or 2 mpg. Perhaps someone has compared the Bridgestones with the Continentals on TireRack's ratings?

Interpretation: First gear in the Camry is lower than in the Subaru, probably helping the Camry zero to sixty times with a more rapid launch. The Subaru engine runs about nine percent slower in first gear than does the Camry. Second gears are quite close. The Subaru engine runs slower in third gear. The difference of the wider first-to-second ratios of the Camry and Subaru is large. The Subaru second gear engine RPM is 63 percent of the first gear RPM. The Camry second gear engine RPM is 58 percent of its first gear RPM. Thus, the Camry engine not only runs slight slower in second gear than the Subaru (5566 versus 5616), it runs even slower as a percentage of the Camry&#146;s engine RPM in first gear. The driver perception will be that of a greater drop in engine RPM for the Camry when going from first to second gear.

The Camry and Subaru fifth gears are similar, where the Camry engine RPM is just under one percent higher. The greatest difference is in the Camry sixth gear, which acts as a true overdrive by lowering engine RPM about 13.4 percent, relative to the Subaru. Therein likely lies much of the Camry&#146;s better highway fuel economy rating with the greater drag of the Subaru&#146;s all wheel drive likely accounting for most of the remaining difference. The Subaru automatic transmission lacks a sixth gear and the Legacy 3.6R would benefit from having it. The Camry engine speed is 14 percent lower at 60MPH and the car uses 11 percent less fuel. Considering the fuel economy negatives of all wheel drive and higher top-gear engine RPM, the Subaru engine would appear to have high fuel efficiency.

The data table arrangement did not survive the posting process. In addition, it is possible, and even likely, that arithmetic and rounding errors have found their way into the numbers. Corrections and other improvements are welcomed, as are all comments, critical or otherwise.